Peter, EASA defines CFI in the AMC to Part ORA.
Chief flight instructor (CFI)
(1) The CFI may delegate standardisation and supervision to the flight instructors. In all cases it is the CFI who is ultimately responsible for ensuring quality and standards.
(2) The CFI should, except in the case of ATOs providing flight test training, have completed 1 000 hours of flight time as pilot-in-command (PIC). At least 500 of those hours should be on flying instructional duties related to the flying courses provided, of which 200 hours may be instrument ground time.
A CRI, as you say, is a different beast who has far more limited scope. In simple terms, he can only teach someone who already hold a licence.
Interesting; thanks. I knew there were responsibilities for administration systems, but didn’t know the 1000hrs min. I know of “wooden hut school” CFIs who definitely didn’t have 1000hrs 
Incidentally, do you still need the EASA CPL to be paid doing FI work, or can it be just the CPL exams? I know the exams (plus a PPL plus the FI rating) are sufficient to teach ab initio PPL.
The Tenerife disaster of 1977 is a classic example of senior captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten who started takeoff roll and one of the other crew members questioning if the runway was actually free, but due to the command structure in the cockpit and seniority of the captain, the other crew members did not do anything to prevent the accident to happen. After all, they were not in charge. After this accident, cockpit procedures were changed. Hierarchical relations among crew members were played down. More emphasis was placed on team decision-making by mutual agreement, part of what has become known in the industry as Crew Resource Management.
Peter wrote:
Not sure about AF447. Both were complete muppets IMHO and the captain was not in the cockpit because he was sleeping, which was because he was out all of previous night shagging.
The Captain was in his scheduled rest period and came back to the FD while they were still at a high enough altitude to recover. Instead they kept the nose up at btwn 10 and 15 degrees. They did ignore repeated stall warnings. All 3 of them were unable to stabilize the airplane, when all that was required was to get the nose down and pick up speed. They did not reckognize the stall at all, despite the pictre being obvious and the stall warning sounding.
Incidentally, do you still need the EASA CPL to be paid doing FI work, or can it be just the CPL exams? I know the exams (plus a PPL plus the FI rating) are sufficient to teach ab initio PPL.
No, any FI can be paid for his work even if he holds just a PPL without CPL theory credit. A new FI then is just limited to instruct for the LAPL only. FI who did not needed the CPL theory credit when they got their FI were grandfathered in. But the FI itself is sufficient to be paid for the work.
RobertL18C wrote:
If I might add that one of the myths spread by the ACME philosophy of training wannabe jet crew is that our single engine piston aircraft have a rotation speed. These aircraft lift off naturally and should not require positive rotation typical of a swept wing jet, only gentle back pressure is required.
Yes and no. It is true for some aircraft (e.g. Cessna 172), less so for other (e.g. PA28). Also, it depends on the amount of runway you have. If you are doing a maximum performance takeoff on a short runway with a PA28 you definitely want a positive rotation.
Well… Most things have been said, but I’d anyway like to side with those supporting Vieke. If I was onboard as a passenger and I felt the PIC was doing something unsafe, I would say so and nothing more. But if I felt an accident was imminent, then I would definitely take controls. I’d rather lose my license than my life. Not that I believe I would run any such risk, despite USFlyers’ ideas.
Interesting how a FI without CPL knowledge is restricted to instruction for the LAPL, wheras a CRI who does not need CPL level knowledge can do club checks on licence holders and teach for SEP and other class and type ratings.
Well the CRI isn’t allowed to do ab initio training, the trainee of a CRI has to hold a license himself.
As Gary Burghoff once put it playing “Radar” O’Reilly in M*A*S*H: I don’t try to understand the system. It slows down work.
If you fly as a passenger with another pilot, that’s just the way it is. You have to accept that he is the pilot and that you will not interfere, all the way to the landing, or, possibly, all the way to the crash (unless specific other agreements are taken for some reason).
I couldnt disagree more strongly.
I have done a bit of mentoring and flying with pilots new on type and here are three scenarios that come to mind.
I recall coming off a grass strip, in a strong cross wind, 4 up at MOTOW. Very shortly after the take off the pilot pulled too hard on the column, as discussed afterwards because there was a wood at the back of the strip and he wanted as much height as possible. I suggested he ease forward on the column, but he didnt in the “heat” of the moment. We had also briefed before that a gentle left hand turn would avoid the forest and put us over open fields – which he forgot. With stall warning going, a rapid rate of sink and an aerobatic aircraft that would happily drop a wing rapidly, it was time to intervene. Of course I have no idea what the outcome would have been if I had not, but very happy to have done so.
I recall a trip over Germany, wasnt paying much attention and there was a Cessna coming stright at us, I still cant believe how close, and I do mean close. Neither pilot had seen each other, and I dont think either was about to. Still very happy for the short but forceful intervention. I only saw the aircraft I suspect because I wasnt flying, wasnt looking, but glanced up at the “right” moment.
Flying aeros once the pilot fronze in a spin. I thought most pilots flying side by side in an aerobat will make it clear that if the pilot fails to react a hard arm will intervene?
Thank goodness never been there but I can imagine an engine failure after take off in a twin is a time to watch. We all get rusty and all can be over come by the moment. Personally I would keep an eye on any low hours / non current pilot, and hope they me, if the other pilot was current and up to speed. Its still too easy to spin the thing.
